If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wanted to show my own opinion on the "should pre merger championships matter as much?" debate

:WARNING TEXT WALL:

I recently got a book for christmas called "Sports illustrated Footballs greatest".
I reccomend this book to any person who wants a history lesson on the best moments in the nfl. They had a section for each player position and a group of editors debated each other and came up with top ten lists for each one. However they also had sections on less "on the field" topics such as best franchise and best uniforms.

The packers were ranked #1 in franchise with the steelers at #2. Now this itself didn't bother me. I have a lot of respect for green bay. It was why they picked it. It had the big words 13 CHAMPIONS in it.

Now I myself believe that the pre merger championships do matter. But they're in no way on the same magnitude as SBs.
The more I read about what the nfl was like, the less and less each individual championship seemed to matter.

1. The nfl was cut in half. There was no AFC. There was hardly even an NFC do to their being just that few teams.

2. Their was no overtime. If a game ended in a tie it did not go into overtime. This might not seem so bad but you have to know that the nfl did not count ties back then. One season the packers made it into the champion with a whopping 7-1-6. However because the rules did not count ties, the packers technically were 7-1.

3. It was a college football system for most of the timespan. You can see how this system is flawed cause now even college football is abandoning it. It was not decided on a field like it should have been, it was decided in a meeting room. And this debate combined with the fact that they did not count ties would lead do some weird matchups in the playoffs.

So you can go ahead and say the packers are the best franchise because of the old championships. Just make sure you include the browns and lions too. Now you look like idiots. The point is a team needs SBs to back these up. In order to be the best franchise you need more than just pre merger wins because then everyone thinks you just took advantage of the old system.

Does that mean they don't count? If that team has no SBs then no I don't think they should count. But if they do then yes. Which is why I consider the bears and packers to be legit. But by how much?

Well because the pack does have 4 SB rings but they just have so many championships(If they only had 1 or 2 I wouldn't think much of it). But because they're so easy compared to SBs they shouldn't BE SBs. 9 old championships just sounds like 1 or 2 SBs. 2 SBs would make them our equals which is kind of the what everybody in the world considers the success of both teams when compared anyway................. Equal. Though I give us the edge because the steelers have been more consistent since the 70s(where were the packers in the 70s and 80s?).

And if you're wondering. Would I still be saying this if the steelers had won pre merger champions? Yes. Yes I would.

The eras were so different that they cannot be compared.

So no matter what a packers fans tells you. Green Bay does not have 13 SBs. They just don't have just their 4 rings either.

They have 4 SBs rings and 9 old championships. With the 9 holding much, much, much less magnitude than the 4. It's just the fact that they have so many is why I would consider them our equals success wise. I just don't think they're a better all around franchise simply because they're not as consistent or as well run as the steelers.

Well if that were the case we'd have 8 championships. Browns fans argue this all the time. Browns won 4 affc championships between 1946-49. They werent even part of the NFL yet!. Then they won 4 NFL titles between 1950-64? (i think). No its not the same as the sb. I think the NFL had like 8 teams in those years. Unlike todays 32.

using nfl championships is like PITT bragging about their 9 national titles. 8 of them happened between 1915 an 1937. take that to an alabama fan and they will laugh in your face.

we've had 46 super bowls and closing in on 47. that's almost 5 decades of modern football (which has been reshaped again and again). if you have to go back that far to talk about the greatness of your team than your team really sucks.

we are in the super bowl era now. that's 2 different time frames. time to put that one to rest.

"Today, I'm officially retiring a Pittsburgh Steeler. And as much as I will miss football, my teammates, coaches and everything about the game, I don't want to play it in any other uniform. The black and gold runs deep in me, and I will remain a Steeler for life."--Hines Ward

Comparing music and football is like comparing...well...music and football.

Are Indy colts fans bragging about all of their teams nfl and Super Bowl championships when they were in Baltimore? I highly doubt it. If they are then they are extremely stupid.

So how far back are you allowed to go? Cubs fans are really bragging about that World Series ring they got over 100 years ago, right? How bout the Red Sox, in 86 years they weren't thumping their chest about the 1918 World Series championship were they?

are the buffalo bills hanging on to those 2 AFL championships? how bout the houston oilers/titans? the dallas texans/kc cheifs won 3 AFL championships...why aren't those ever mentioned. did the AFL not count?

so the packers are allowed to claim the 1930 nfl championship? here were the teams in the league:

bottom line, the only era that counts is the super bowl era! i'm not saying that because the steelers have the most championships, i'm saying that because we are so far removed from 1929, 1930, 31, 36, 39, 44, etc...

its nice to have the history, but come on...

and btw, if you want to make an argument, just make the argument. we're all adults here. but to finish your post with "grow up"? look in the mirror buddy!!!!

"Today, I'm officially retiring a Pittsburgh Steeler. And as much as I will miss football, my teammates, coaches and everything about the game, I don't want to play it in any other uniform. The black and gold runs deep in me, and I will remain a Steeler for life."--Hines Ward

Comparing music and football is like comparing...well...music and football.

Are Indy colts fans bragging about all of their teams nfl and Super Bowl championships when they were in Baltimore? I highly doubt it. If they are then they are extremely stupid.

So how far back are you allowed to go? Cubs fans are really bragging about that World Series ring they got over 100 years ago, right? How bout the Red Sox, in 86 years they weren't thumping their chest about the 1918 World Series championship were they?

are the buffalo bills hanging on to those 2 AFL championships? how bout the houston oilers/titans? the dallas texans/kc cheifs won 3 AFL championships...why aren't those ever mentioned. did the AFL not count?

so the packers are allowed to claim the 1930 nfl championship? here were the teams in the league:

bottom line, the only era that counts is the super bowl era! i'm not saying that because the steelers have the most championships, i'm saying that because we are so far removed from 1929, 1930, 31, 36, 39, 44, etc...

its nice to have the history, but come on...

and btw, if you want to make an argument, just make the argument. we're all adults here. but to finish your post with "grow up"? look in the mirror buddy!!!!

I still think the old ones matter as long as you have a lot of them AND you have SBs to back them up. This I feel is what separates the packers and bears from the bills and oilers. The fact that unlike the cubs the packers are still winning I think makes them our equals. They are just not the best ever. It's more like a tie between the steelers and packers.

All titles count. Just because we didn't win **** for 40 years doesn't mean the teams that did shouldn't matter.

It has nothing to do with us. It has to do with whether or not their wins are the equivalent of SBs. You have nooooooooooo idea how easy it was back then compared to now. Of course they should count. But by how much? Are we really gonna say the packers have 13 SBs or the FREAKING BROWNS have 8?